The divine Scriptures exclude all contention, as Moses clearly says: *He who is, sent me*; and the Gospel: *In the beginning was the Word*; and it was not said once, but four times. And again elsewhere: *He who is of God*; and *He who is in the bosom of the Father*; and in another place: *He who is in heaven*; and in the Apocalypse: *He who is, and who was, and who is to come*; and blessed Paul: *Who is the brightness of the glory*; and: *When he was in the form of God*; and again concerning the Son: *Who is over all things, God, who is blessed for ever. Amen*.
XXXI. If he is true God, and light, and immutable, and good, and holy, and Lord, and Son, and yet when these are also attributed to the Father, he is not these in like manner, but A *more so*, then he would be such not on account of the preeminence and excellence of his substance, but by an overflowing of quality; for a substance is not said to be "more" or "less" than another substance. But a good person is said to be more good than another good person, and a just person more than another just person; therefore, the nature of those who are begotten is the same as that of the one who begot them, even if he who is begotten has the *to einai* (being) in a different way. For not even Abel, who was begotten from the union of a man and a woman, was of a different nature than Adam, who was not begotten, but fashioned.
XXXII. If that which is a cause is greater and different in substance from that of which it is the cause—and every father is a cause, and every son is from a cause—then fathers are greater and different in substance from their sons, and are not of one substance: but this is not true.
XXXIII. The Arians ask whether the Father, having begotten the Son, ceased to beget; if it is answered that he did cease, they infer that he therefore began to beget, for everything that B has an end, they say, also has a beginning. To whom we shall respond, if it is necessary that what ceases has a beginning, then what has a beginning must also have an end. Therefore, angels and all incorporeal beings that began to exist must also cease to exist: but this is absurd. It is possible, therefore, that what began to exist does not cease, and that what ceases did not begin. But if this is not the case, then the Son himself, if he has a beginning, will also have an end, according to their opinion.
XXXIV. The nature of those things which are begotten and of the begetter is the same, even though he who is begotten began to exist in a different way; for Abel, born from a union, was not of a different nature than Adam, who was not begotten but fashioned.
XXXV. That which is one in operation and will in incorporeal beings is called one in substance. When the Savior said: *I and the Father are one*, he spoke of one of the things written above. Therefore, if they say they are one in operation, they must also say they are one in substance; for the operation of those things which are of different substance will never be similar. But if they are one in will, it is necessary not only that whatever the Father wills, the Son must also will; but also that whatever the Son wills, the Father must also will. The Son will therefore command the Father concerning those things he wills, and regarding those things he is commanded; but if he is only commanded, he serves under compulsion and unwillingly. If, however, they are not one in will or in operation, it follows, according to their opinion, that they are one in substance, that is, *homoousion* Father and Son, which they themselves say is impossible.
Of the same St. Basil against Eunomius, that it does not declare unbegotten as a substance, but *huparxin*, that is, existence.
I. If the unbegotten is a substance, and the begotten is C of another substance—and for this reason the Father and the Son are not of the same substance—then it is necessary that all begotten things are of one substance. Therefore, begotten things are *homoousia*, that is, of the same substance with the Son of God; and...
II. If the unbegotten is a substance *antidiastellomenon* (distinct) against the begotten Son, and the uncreated is a substance *antidiastellomenon* (distinct) against the creation; then the unbegotten and uncreated is a substance.
The rest is missing.
EXPOSITION OF THE HOLY FATHERS, OF THE GREAT BASIL AND GREGORY THE THEOLOGIAN, On the holy and orthodox faith.
689 I believe in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity *homoousion*, inseparable, indivisible, unconfused, and incomprehensible, one nature, and substance, and kingdom, three persons. If, however, you are asked what the persons declare, or D the hypostases, you will answer that we interpret them as mind, word, and spirit. The mind begets the word, and the word does not go forth without the spirit; for in it God is recognized as living, who begets the word *apathos* (impassibly). But if you wish to learn this more clearly through examples, hear...